We are talking about WHY it was not reported right off. Because it had nothing at all to do with "the initial contact." What part of "knee jerk" do I need to explain to you?
No Black Dog,
we (as in, you and I) are not.
We are talking about a false assertion made by you because you did not know the evidence.
And this latest comment by you just confirms your dishonestly in deflecting from being wrong in what you said and to what was actually being discussed.
First of all the basis of what was being discussed is irrelevant to your false statement.
Secondly, you don't even have that right.
In regards to your false assertion, what you now say is betrayed by your own word usage and what you provided in support of your assertion.
It shows that you were not speaking to the "initial" engagement by Officer Wilson. It also shows that you didn't even know there were two separate engagements. So stop trying to obfuscate the fact that you were wrong.
What you said was;
That story (about the robbery) never got around because it had absolutely nothing at all to do with his arrest or shooting, at all.
That is a false statement because the contact you spoke about was the second engagement of "arrest"
(which specifically was what you were speaking about) and it had every thing to do with the robbery and his eventually being shot.
And even though you were corrected, you still clung to your false assertion by providing an incorrect report/headline.
The Chief never said any such thing. He said the initial contact had nothing to do with the robbery or the shooting.
It was the subsequent contact which did. You know, after he disengaged and drove off, he became aware of them fitting the description of those who robbed the store, so he reversed his vehicle and reengaged Brown and Johnson.
This contact had everything to do with the robbery and lead to the shooting.
And even though it was pointed out to you what the Chief actually said, and that he never said what the report you provided indicated, you again falsely state that is what the Chief said. D'oh! :doh
No, we are not talking about why it was not reported right off, especially as it was. It is why folks like you have glommed on to the false report of what the Chief really didn't say. Because the Robbery was known and reported on.
So to what was originally being spoken about. Which you also got wrong, and were wrong in what you said.
The two "sides" have never been equivocal. Lets not pretend otherwise.
Yes they have. The cop was defending himself from a "thug" and worse while the opposite side with it's race baiting etc. 2 Sides of the same coin.
Of course I am no partisan hack either.
Said the partisan hack. :doh
As this is what was originally being spoken about in that exchange, you are wrong again. There is, and was no equivalency between the two.
"Thug" did not come into play until Brown's actions as a thug were known.
And his involvement in the robbery was known before the store video was released by the Police and before the riots/protests.
So you are just speaking nonsense, as usual.
Yeah, the knee jerking belongs to you as well as the rioters.
